Seeking diversity at Harvard
Suzanne Fields
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20050124.shtml
January 24, 2005
Pity the president of Harvard. He's stuck at an institution of learning
in the 21st century where to question innate "gender" differences risks
the abuse that Galileo took in the 17th century when he questioned the
notion, politically correct for his day, that the earth was the center
of the universe.
The cry, predictable enough, went up from the women of academe who
regard themselves as the guardians of revealed truth: "Retract. Repent.
Resign. The sun revolves around us."
Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, was invited to speak at an
off-the-record economic conference to consider why minorities and women
are not more successful in careers in math and science at the nation's
top research universities. He tried to be provocative by examining the
various reasons suggested by the data compiled by those who study such
topics. Silly man.
He first said what has long been obvious to many women, including
feminists who observe the obvious - that fewer women than men want to
put in the long hours it takes to struggle to the top. Women sometimes
prefer allotting more time to family life, even including having babies.
He stepped into something resembling a badly soiled diaper when he noted
that some studies suggest there may be innate differences between the
male and female of the human species.
He cited scores on standardized math and science tests that show more
high school boys than girls at the highest and at the lowest levels of
achievement in various disciplines. Some studies suggest that this may
stem from biological differences.
"I felt like I was going to be sick," said Nancy Hopkins, a biology
professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
{ This is not as good as her previously reported
saying later that if she hadn't left, ''I would've either blacked out or
thrown up". }
She walked out in a state of shock, we hope to seek professional help. "My
heart was
pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset."
Could her reaction have been caused by an innate biological difference
from the men in assembly, none of whom walked out? Had she left home
without putting a vial of smelling salts in her purse? Other women and
men present were more measured in their reactions. Quite a few expressed
shock that anyone was shocked. Others felt the bluntness to be
undiplomatic. Those most offended decried Larry Summers' use of personal
anecdote. He told how his own daughter once received two toy trucks and
spontaneously gave them personalities, calling one a "daddy truck" and
the other a "baby truck." (He didn't say: "Isn't that just like a girl?")
Mr. Summers quickly adopted the defensive crouch so drearily familiar in
our public life. He said his attempt at humor misfired and his desire to
stimulate a debate over the interplay of innate and natural ability got
lost in ideological assumptions. He was not stating an absolute
position, but tossing out ideas that required more investigation: "I'm
sorry for any misunderstanding but believe that raising questions,
discussing multiple factors that may explain a difficult problem, and
seeking to understand how they interrelate is vitally important." (He
didn't say: "Get a life, ladies.")
It's obvious now to everyone that prejudice in the past held talented
women back, that the powerful old-boy network jealously protected its
own sex on the ladder to the top. But as women move toward the head of
the class and break through glass ceiling after ceiling in a
multiplicity of roles, it's clear to everyone but the sheltered denizens
of the ivy towers, where no snub, harassment or obstacle goes
unimagined, that discrimination against women has diminished radically.
Women themselves are making choices, to mix and match career and home
life. Some women are leaving the workplace to savor the joys of hearth
and home when their children are young. Women who choose a profession in
math and science sometimes factor family life into their goals, too.
If Mother Nature is absolutely neutral in assigning preferences and
abilities to men and women, what's the harm in asking how and why? The
facts, after all, will out. Shooting the messenger may be more fun, but
teaches us nothing except that some men - and women - shoot from the
lip.
There's an abundance of anecdotal evidence of parents who were
determined to create "gender equal" outcomes with their sons and
daughters were later forced to admit that a little boy with the gift of
a tiny teapot often turns it into a gun; a little girl who gets a truck
often tries to use it as a cradle. If there are innate differences in
certain intellectual abilities and talents, so what? So nothing, as long
as society doesn't throw up arbitrary obstacles.
Lawrence Summers says Harvard is taking aggressive steps to increase
"diversity" on campus. He might start in the faculty lounge.